ex-LT, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110415
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  SECNAVINST 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS)

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
	Narrative Reason change to:	RESIGNATION

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive: USN (ROTC)	19970428 - 20000511  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  20000512	Age:  
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20101031	Highest Rank:  LT
Length of Service:  10 Year(s)   05 Month(s)   19 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  NFIR
Officer’s Fitness reports:  Available
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol   JSAM        (2)

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20090824:	Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman) 
	Article  (Adultery) 
	Awarded: PUNITIVE LETTER OF    Suspended:  

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “SECNAVINST 1920.6C”
	
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	

Related to Post-Service Period:
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant contends his discharge was improper and should have been based on a medically disabling injury that occurred prior to allegations of misconduct.
2.	Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to illegal/improper actions of his command’s investigation of alleged misconduct.
3.	Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable, because his Commanding Officer had accepted and endorsed his unqualified request for resignation with an Honorable discharge.
4.	Applicant contends his discharge warrants consideration for upgrade based on his post-service achievements.
5.	Applicant contends that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) contributed to the misconduct for which he was separated.
6.	Applicant contends PTSD, combined with prescription narcotics for an ankle injury, aggravated the conditions in which he admitted to the misconduct for which he was separated.
7.	Applicant contends his discharge warrants upgrade based on case law that reveals another officer’s retention in the Navy with similar misconduct.
Decision

Date:  20110812		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  .

Discussion

In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant submitted three DD Form 293 Applications for Review of Discharge (9 Apr 2011, 5 Jul 2011, 1 Aug 2011) that identified seven decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  The Board conducted a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service did not include any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings, but did reflect one  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an Officer and Gentlemen, related to the circumstances and conduct surrounding his adultery with the wife of a fellow squadron officer) and Article 134 (Adultery, April-May 2009, with the wife of a fellow squadron officer).  These offenses are punishable by up to one year of confinement and a Dismissal (punitive discharge) if awarded at trial by courts-martial (Special or General).  After conducting a Preliminary Inquiry investigation (Jun-Jul 2009), which was prompted by phone calls (13-14 May 2009) from the Applicant’s spouse to command duty officers regarding allegations of her husband’s infidelity, the Applicant’s command chose not to refer charges for trial by courts-martial, but opted instead to conduct commanding officer’s NJP.  On 18 Aug 2009, the Applicant was advised of his rights in relation to pending NJP and the charges levied against him.  The Applicant chose not to consult with a lawyer and accepted NJP (versus the option to refuse NJP and request trial by courts-martial).  The Applicant also chose to appear in person and submit written statements to the commanding officer.  On 24 Aug 2009, the Commander, Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic, convened NJP proceedings on the Applicant.  After considering all the facts and circumstances surrounding the misconduct charges, to include the results from a command investigation, witness statements, phone records, and the testimony and guilty plea of the Applicant, the commanding officer found the Applicant guilty of violating UCMJ Article 133 and Article 134.  On 28 Aug 2009, the Applicant was given a punitive letter of reprimand (PLOR), which he appealed on 15 Sep 2009 due to language contained therein related to lying and culpability.  On 1 Oct 2009, the PLOR was reissued, which the Applicant again appealed due to language within the PLOR that he contended would cause harm or embarrassment to the other individual(s) listed therein.  His request was denied and the PLOR remained as reissued on 1 Oct 2009.  On 9 Nov 2009, the Applicant submitted a statement involving adverse matters to the Commander, Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic, in which he 

contended his Article 31 Rights were violated during the commencement of a Human Factors Board (HFB) proceeding.  He also contended that the HFB and Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board (FNAEB) proceedings results, and the subsequent discussions with his chain of command (VFA-106 and Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic), placed him in the position of having to plead guilty at NJP as no separate evidence was produced to prove his guilt other than the personal statements he made at forums dedicated solely to aviation safety.  On 9 Feb 2010, the Applicant submitted a letter to the Commander, Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic, in which he revoked his agreement and instead stated his objection to the recommendations listed in the 7 Oct 2009 Report of NJP (Detachment for cause; Show cause for retention).  The Applicant submitted a request for an unqualified resignation (requesting an Honorable discharge) on 12 Apr 2010, which was favorably endorsed by his squadron commanding officer on 23 Apr 2010.  However, there are no details in the record to determine whether the request and endorsement were submitted up through the chain of command.  Regardless, on 10 Jun 2010, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERSCOM) directed that the Applicant show cause for retention before a Board of Inquiry (BOI).  On 23 Jun 2010, the Applicant acknowledged the rights afforded to him and also offered to submit a request for a qualified resignation with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  Statements in the record reveal that the Applicant was suspected of altering the original document to read Honorable vice General (Under Honorable Conditions) and that attempts to retrieve the original Acknowledgment of Rights (AOR) form, which specified a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, were not responded to by the Applicant.  On 11 Aug 2010, the BOI was convened and resulted in the following findings: By 3-0 vote, the Applicant committed Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman (Article 133) and Adultery (Article 134); by 3-0 vote, the Applicant failed to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment, as evidenced by PERSCOM letter 10 Jun 2010; and by 3-0 vote, that the Applicant be separated from the Navy with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  On 30 Aug 2010, the Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic endorsed and forwarded the BOI report to the Secretary of the Navy, via the Commander, Navy Personnel Command.  On 4 Oct 2010, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that the Applicant receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Misconduct (Other).  On 20 Oct 2010, in conjunction with the 6 Oct 2010 Secretary of the Navy decision, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command directed that the Applicant be administratively separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  The Applicant was subsequently discharged from the Navy on 31 Oct 2010.

Issue 1:  (Decisional) (Propriety)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and should have been based on a medically disabling injury that occurred prior to allegations of misconduct.  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court-martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Issue 2:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to illegal/improper actions of his command’s investigation of alleged misconduct.  In his letter to the NDRB, the Applicant specifies that command improprieties included: violation of his Constitutional rights (search and seizure; deprived of personal firearms for 15 months; failure to administer Article 31 rights; interrogations made while Applicant was under the influence of narcotic pain medication; false defamatory statements made by the Class Advisor; false official statement regarding content of Applicant’s wife’s statements to the command; use of non-admissible and insufficient evidence used during NJP; conspiracy by fellow Naval Officers to deprive the Applicant’s family of their rights; and pattern of injustice in the late notification of delay of promotion), criminal behavior and covert actions of officers in conducting a command investigation (including illegal search and seizure at his private residence), that his admission of misconduct was obtained while he was under influence of prescription narcotics, and that his admission was the only information used in finding him guilty of misconduct and in separating him from the Navy.  The NDRB is not an investigative body, and allegations of command legal or administrative impropriety should be made to the Naval Inspector General’s Office.

Allegations notwithstanding, the Board conducted a detailed examination of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Board reviewed the entire service record and could find no evidence to support the Applicant’s claim of command impropriety.  Evidence in the record indicates that the Applicant’s Commanding Officer (CO) directed an O-3 (Class Advisor) to go to the Applicant’s home and retrieve his guns based on information relayed by the Applicant’s wife to the command about concern for her own safety with guns in the house.  The Class Advisor, along with a LCDR and another O-3, proceeded to the Applicant’s house the same day.  

While at the home, the Class Advisor asked the Applicant a series of questions regarding his wife’s allegations of infidelity with another squadron member’s wife.  In response to the questions, the Applicant stated he and his wife and the squadron member 

and his wife became friends in Meridian, MS and remained so after their reassignment to Oceana, VA.  When asked when was the last time he spoke with the squadron member’s wife, he responded initially that it was two months prior after a dinner with both families at a restaurant in town.  The Applicant continued by saying his wife was upset that evening due to an argument with the squadron member’s wife over statements his wife had made in the restroom.  When the Applicant was asked why his wife would suspect him of infidelity with the squadron member’s wife, he stated his wife was very insecure and jealous at times, but he had no idea why she would suspect him.  When asked again if he had spoken with the squadron member’s wife, he stated he tried calling her several times the night before, after his own wife had stormed out of the house, that she had answered once, then hung up when he asked her what she had said to his wife.  When asked when the first time the subject of divorce was brought up by his wife, the Applicant stated that she brought it up during the summer of 2008, but then promised to change and make things better.  On 1 May 2009, the same night he returned from a two-week El Centro, CA training detachment (with a broken ankle injury that occurred during a squadron sporting event in El Centro), the Applicant told his wife that he wanted to divorce her.  When asked if anything was going on with the other squadron member’s wife, the Applicant replied nothing was going on.  The Board noted that each of the three squadron members who were present during the 14 May 2009 conversation with the Applicant in his home noticed that he had changed his response to the question about when he had spoken with the squadron member’s wife last (from two months prior to the day before).  Statements from the three officers present also clearly reflect that the discussion with the Applicant was not command directed and was not conducted while acting in an official capacity nor while conducting a covert investigation.  Hence, there was no requirement for Article 31 Rights advisement.  The Applicant’s CO directed the Class Advisor (O-3) to go to the Applicant’s home only to retrieve his personal firearms due to the safety concerns the Applicant’s wife had voiced to the command.  Any conversation made with his fellow squadron mates was voluntary, just like any other conversation conducted in the squadron or anywhere else.

Additionally, the Board could find no evidence of the Applicant’s claim of illegal search and seizure.  Official statements made by the three squadron officers who visited his home on 14 May 2009 reveal the Applicant willingly turned over his firearms and told the officers where to find them (pistol, in the rear of the Applicant’s car; pellet rifle, in garage; rifle, in upstairs closet).  Lastly, although the Applicant may have been under the influence of prescription pain medication for his ankle injury, evidence does not suggest that he was not mentally alert or incapable of controlling his actions during the conversation.  Moreover, the statements he made during conversation with his fellow squadron mates were not materially substantial (in fact, he denied any involvement with the squadron member’s wife) when compared to the evidence revealed in the command investigation, to include witness statements and phone/text records, and the proceedings from NJP and the BOI, which found via a preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant had, in fact, committed the misconduct (Adultery and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer) for which he was charged.  After thorough examination and analysis of the available records, the NDRB could find no evidence to support the Applicant’s claim of command impropriety and therefore found this issue to be without merit.  Relief denied.

Issue 3:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable, because his Commanding Officer had accepted and endorsed his unqualified request for resignation with an Honorable discharge.  The NDRB found copies of the Applicant’s request for an unqualified resignation (with an Honorable discharge) and his CO’s favorable endorsement; however, the Board was unable to determine whether the request and endorsement were submitted up through the chain of command.  Nevertheless, since the Secretary of the Navy was the Officer Separation Authority for this case, whether an unqualified resignation was submitted and endorsed by the Applicant’s CO is irrelevant.  Evidence within the record indicates that on 10 Jun 2010, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command directed the Applicant to show cause for retention before a BOI as a result of being found guilty of Adultery (Article 134) and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer (Article 133) at Commander, Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic NJP on 24 Aug 2009 (with the resultant PLOR issued on 28 Aug 2009).  On 23 Jun 2010, the Applicant acknowledged his rights and also offered to submit a request for a qualified resignation.  Statements in the record reveal that the Applicant was suspected of altering the original document to read Honorable vice General (Under Honorable Conditions) and that attempts to retrieve the original AOR form, which specified a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, were not responded to by the Applicant.

Per the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN), an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  After reviewing the Applicant’s service records and the misconduct for which he was separated, the NDRB determined that the Applicant 

clearly warranted a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, especially considering the special trust and confidence placed in Naval Officers, the service discrediting nature of his misconduct, and the severe effect on unit morale and cohesion when an officer violates the trust of a fellow officer.  On 6 Oct 2010, the Secretary of the Navy (Separation Authority) directed the Applicant be administratively separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  Accordingly, the Board found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge warrants consideration for an upgrade based on his post-service achievements.  The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant’s character or an aberration.  However, there is no law or regulation, that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered.  The Applicant provided documentary evidence to include: criminal records check, law school transcripts record, law school student leadership position, State of Virginia law intern credential, evidence of financial stability, character witness statements, church membership, and a child’s birth certificate.  The Applicant’s efforts to improve his life are noteworthy and are commended.  However, after careful review of the Applicant’s post-service documentation and official service record, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative separation for officer misconduct, the NDRB determined that relief was not warranted.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that PTSD contributed to the misconduct for which he was separated.  The Applicant submitted a 22 Jun 2011 Department of Veteran Affairs Decision Letter that granted him 30% service-connected disability for PTSD with trichotillomania that resulted from his claim that in November 2006, while based in Qatar as a member of the Joint Combined Air Operations Center, the death of an Air Force major while piloting his F-16 (a result of a controlled flight into terrain incident while engaging enemy forces in Iraq) and video of post-mortem recovery of his remains by Al Qaeda affiliated personnel, horrified and shocked him to such extent that he exhibits hypervigilance, recurrent nightmares, avoidance of stimuli, diminished interest or participation in significant activities, impaired focus and attention, feelings of detachment or estrangement, difficulty falling asleep and remaining asleep, irritability with outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, depressed mood, weekly panic attacks, and distress from the sound of planes flying overhead.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  While the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his conduct was willful and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Moreover, the Board conducted an exhaustive review of the records and found no evidence to support, nor did the Applicant provide any evidence to indicate, he attempted to use the numerous services available for service members who undergo personal problems during their service such as the Navy Chaplain, Medical or Mental Health professionals, or Family Advocacy Programs.  After careful consideration of all the available evidence, the Board determined that PTSD was not a reasonable cause for or mitigation of the Applicant’s serious and willful misconduct.  Accordingly, the Board found this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Issue 6:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends PTSD, combined with prescription narcotics for an ankle injury, aggravated the conditions in which he admitted to the misconduct for which he was separated.  Refer to discussion for Issue 2 and Issue 5.  Relief denied.

Issue 7:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge warrants upgrade based on case law that reveals another officer’s retention in the Navy with similar misconduct.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D (in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code) establishes the NDRB’s scope and responsibility to review and make determinations on the propriety and equity of service discharges.  Since each discharge review is conducted on a case-by-case basis and considers all the relevant facts specific to a particular case, attempts to reference other similar cases and then apply standard generic results is erroneous and does not comply with the instructions that govern the conduct of the discharge review process.  Accordingly, the Board found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until PRESENT establishes policies, standards, and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the Naval Service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity. 

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership:  The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023